[Lhorn]

Those are nice. What body did you shoot those with?

Black dog looks like he's smiling in the first pic.

[Aaron28]

Those are nice. What body did you shoot those with?

thank you.....K-50....has aperture block failure but still a great work horse with manual lenses!

[photoptimist]

The Pentax 28/3.5 Shift is beauty and the beast in both form and function. Sharp and demanding, it can capture amazing images by forcing me to slow down.

The Super Takumar 135/3.5 M42 is swelte and crisp for telephoto work -- I need to use it more often!

And the Pentax MK 50/1.2 feels like two lenses in one: dreamy wide-open and retina-slicing sharp closed down. (Edit: it's the K 50/1.2 -- thanks, ChristianRock)

[pepperberry farm]

latest manual-focus lens to show up is a revelation...

Carl Zeiss Jena MC Flektogon 35mm f2.4 - an M42 lens manufactured this long ago should not be this sharp and clear:

[ChristianRock]

Got me interested in other Sears lenses.
Anyone know if the Sears 28/2.8 macro is worth picking up? I've got a Rokinon 28mm that I'm sure that I am impressed with and thinking of other inexpensive 28mm.

Should I get the Sears or pay a few bucks more for a Pentax A or M?

I've had the Sears (or at least one of the Sears, I think they rebadged different manufacturers for their 28mm lens, through the years).

I'd say skip it since the Pentax 28mm lenses can be so cheap. The 28 2.8 versions are quite better, and doesn't cost a whole lot more. You can usually pick one up for 50-60 dollars (a few dollars more for the version with A contacts). I know there's two designs for the M 28 2.8 and the latter design was used on the A version. I had both and there isn't that much of a difference.
The M 28 3.5 is even better - I love mine and it's the one I have kept (sold the M and A 28 2.8 long ago). It can also be had for 50-60 dollars and it's miles ahead of any 28 2.8 design I've used (including the Rikenon XR 28 2.8 that I used to be quite fond of, but the M 28 3.5 is just better).
And then there's the K 28 3.5, even better than the M... but that one's gotten expensive, I think you'd end up paying 200 dollars or so for one these days - if you can find one. People who have one are not likely to let it go...

The only 28 2.8 that is worth having I think, other than the SMC Pentax models (skip the non-SMC Takumar Bayonet as well!) is the Sigma MiniWide 28 2.8. That one is sharp as a razor and renders great colors, but does have flare issues (like all Sigmas of that time).

[ChristianRock]

And the Pentax M 50/1.2 feels like two lenses in one: dreamy wide-open and retina-slicing sharp closed down.

I think you mean the K 50mm f/1.2? Mine looks like an M but it's indeed a K series lens. There was no M version.

Otherwise I agree, it's quickly become my favorite manual focus lens. I've used some other lenses recently and I keep thinking, "the K 50 1.2 would have done this much better..."

[jack002]

My 50mm f2 Ricoh lens

[ERNR]

Haven’t used them lately, but the M 50/1.4 and the A 35/2.
Have used, recently, the M 100/4 macro.
I think I should get the 50 and 35 out to play again soon. And the others.

[pleo]

The best and most desireable manual lenses have gone:
the A*-triumphirat
1.4/85
1.8/135
2.8/200

I had them all but sold them due to financial reasons.....

One of the best was the K 1.2/50:
Superb build Quality and sharpness.

But when it comes to the question, which manual lenses go with me most of the time:
- A 1,7/50 (compact, well built, very good sharpness)
- M 3.5/135 (build quality, handling, special character!)
- Tamron SP 2.5/90 macro (the first edition: full Metall, superb build quality, very good sharpness when stopped down - it's an old 'typical' macro lens)
- Tamron SP 5.6/300 (I know that there are different versions of this lens....) (very lieghtweight for the focal length - but very good build Quality and better sharpness than every xx-300-zoom lens I ever compared it with)

[jbinpg]

I'm with the other Super-Tak 50/1.4 lovers. I have the early 8-element version and cannot believe how good it is in all but flare situations. The focusing feel is second to none.

[Wasp]

Taken with the Rokinon 85mm f/1.4. It is not just for pretty faces with bokeh blurred backgrounds.

[ERNR]

So, this may be heresy.
Inspired by this discussion, I took some lenses and my K-50 into the backyard today to photograph some very patient and photogenic tomatoes, peppers and autumn leaves.
And I discovered that there’s hardly any difference (to my eye) between the quality of the images from the M 50/1.4 and the F 50/1.7 although I still do, very slightly, prefer the M. Probably not enough to give up AF and work with the crippled mount.
Between the M 135/3.5 and the DA 18-135 at 135, there’s again only a very slight difference — in favor of the DA zoom. (The images look almost the same but there’s a little fringing in the M’s images.)

[grey goat]

So, this may be heresy.
Inspired by this discussion, I took some lenses and my K-50 into the backyard today to photograph some very patient and photogenic tomatoes, peppers and autumn leaves.
And I discovered that there’s hardly any difference (to my eye) between the quality of the images from the M 50/1.4 and the F 50/1.7 although I still do, very slightly, prefer the M. Probably not enough to give up AF and work with the crippled mount.
Between the M 135/3.5 and the DA 18-135 at 135, there’s again only a very slight difference — in favor of the DA zoom. (The images look almost the same but there’s a little fringing in the M’s images.)

Oh, I don't think it's heresy, ERNR. For one thing, the F 50/1.7 seems very similar in design, optically, to the A and M models. And today's zooms, especially the best of them, are the equal of many primes, from what I hear.

For me, I like the older primes because they're usually less expensive and smaller than really nice zoooms. And they feel really good to me, and they're what I'm used to. And they're usually faster than zooms, and for some types of photography, that matters.

But it does mean focusing manually and getting a base exposure with the green button, but that's what I'm used to.

But I don't think it's heresy to use the lens that's most comfortable to you and gives you results you like. That might be a newer AF lens, or it may be an old screw-mount. Getting the image you want using the right tool, whichever tool it is, is not heresy: it's the right way for that photographer.

Enjoy, and create!

[ERNR]

I thought it might be heresy to make that statement in this particular thread.
Anyway, images -- (I marked them in the top left corner) and I also downsized them.

[Serkevan]

So, this may be heresy.
Inspired by this discussion, I took some lenses and my K-50 into the backyard today to photograph some very patient and photogenic tomatoes, peppers and autumn leaves.
And I discovered that there’s hardly any difference (to my eye) between the quality of the images from the M 50/1.4 and the F 50/1.7 although I still do, very slightly, prefer the M. Probably not enough to give up AF and work with the crippled mount.
Between the M 135/3.5 and the DA 18-135 at 135, there’s again only a very slight difference — in favor of the DA zoom. (The images look almost the same but there’s a little fringing in the M’s images.)

I think the best quality of the M 135/3.5 is that it's a full frame 135mm that happens to be a bit faster than the slew of slower 70-200ish zooms, while weighing a lot less than the D FA* 70-200/2.8 (or any other such zoom, let's be honest). A pocket long portrait/tele lens is actually quite practical, I just toss it in the bag alongside the 28-105 if I don't want to carry "anything". Now if I just pony up for a 20/4 on the other side...